one in the rear. we need conditional use for density. you will like the configuration. there will be four units in the building, two bedrooms each from 647 to 786 square feet. two bedrooms, these are going to be affordable by design as much as that is possible in san francisco these days. third floor is five feet from the front and i want to point out the elevation if i can get the screen. you will see it. this is consistent with the street wall. we are not going taller than the right neighbor. left is shorter. they have been afproved for vertical addition to add seven feet. they should be taller. they are not set back. we feel this is very consistent with the neighborhood. we need variance for technical issues. we are working the issues. we are here today to ask for

increased density. we would like to continue to workout the technical details for the variance. thank you. i appreciate your support. >> thank you. we will take public comment on this item. anybody wishes to comment, please come on up now. okay. public comment is closed. commissioner richards. commissioner fong first. >> commissioner fong: for the project sponsor,, is that cornie original to the building? >> good afternoon, correct, as you see on the top side sheet a.

we are keeping it as is. >> commissioner fong: is that original to the building? or was it added? >> i am not sure about that at the moment. >> commissioner fong: it doesn't integrate the bay very well. >> i am not sure. the project is deemed not historical, but as far as the cornice, i am not sure. >> you prefer to keep it though? >> are you done, commissioner? commissioner richards? >> how far back is the living area from the cornice? how far back is the addition?

>> five feet. that is how it is sitting back five foot from the property line. the cornice is extending out about a foot or so. >> the addition behind it is just five feet? >> correct. >> just address some of the technical issues. the top unit technically is triggering a variance for rear yard and for open space because the as we were just referencing the front deck is only five feet. the minimum requirement for open space is six feet. that is something we will talk about going forward in terms of the modification can be made relatively minor and avoid that variance. the basement level unit requires

a variance for exposure and open space, and generally when we have had proposals where a new unit was viable as a.d.u., you can get administrative waivers from exposure and open space if you need minimum criteria. we are reluctant to grant variances when you have an administrative path forward. generally speaking, the proposals and variances are fairly minor through the variance or converting the basement level to a.d.u., i am generally supportive. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i would be supportive if we take the extra foot off on the top and make it six feet and then approve it. >> i just have a question aboutt

the variance for the basement unit. is there anything to improve it in terms of the light and exposure? >> generally, what is done in this situation is maybe not able to be done at the front. there could be some level of excavation at the rear to dig out to provide depth to the window and light they can come into that space. absent that it is excavating and removing that earth to allow more light in and other than maybe raising the building completely, i am not sure what options are available. the project sponsor may have evaluated and discarded other ideas and may speak to that further. >> i don't want to have that -- i like the fact these are smaller units and more affordable.

i don't want to excavate to make it less affordable. did you consider other ways? >> good afternoon, commissioners. the option was to raise the building but unfortunately those front stairs are going to extend further to the building and would wipe out some of the existing unit's square footage. >> i am okay with it. commissioner, did you want to say something, commissioner fung. >> i can support it as it is i move to accept with conditions proposed by staff. >> second. >> did you want to say something? >> can we have that additional

foot? i see the project sponsor saying yes. since there are four of us, we all have to agree. i accept the amendment. >> i second. >> that is taking a foot off the top, the front of the top floor one foot further. >> very, commissioners. a motion seconded to approve with conditions as amended setting back the top floor one foot. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously 4-0. >> i will close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement to explore the

exposure and variance for the basement level unit. >> very good, commissioners. shall we move to 16? >> let's do 14. >> we will go to 14a and b. 2016-00179dnx at 95 hawthorne street. the shadow findings and downtown project authorization. >> this is department staff. on the aggregate all of public comment the vast majority of which you received. i have updated motions to describe. the item before you is downtown project authorization for the proposed project at 95 hawthorn at hawthorne and fulsome streets.

-- fulsome streets. the action items to approve the downtown project pursuant to 210.3 and 309. to adopt shadow findings pursuant to 295. it includes demolition of five story office building and new residential building reaching 444 feet, 462 inclusive of the rooftop. with approximately 3500 square feet of ground floor retail. would contain 199 one bedroom units, 144 two bedroom and 49 two bedroom totaling 392 units with 55 below market rate units. no studios. a total of 107 off street vehicle parking spaces. well below the point 5 cap in the zoning district.

car share and bak bike parking. this is the bonus program 206.67 and california government code sections 65915 through 18. maximizing the residential density on the site. it is seeks six waivers from development standards. set backs in street wall, rear yard 134, common usable open space, dwelling unit exposure, ground level wind cents and lastly height which is section 250. on june 5 and 20th the recreation and parks review the project if it would adversely impact the use. the park under the yard of the

recreation and park commission. through 1906-12. the shadows cast would not have a significant impact. the department has received two dozen letters in support. they are before you. the motion is this. we have some late conversations. we have lifted the exception before you at the previous draft motion 309 exception to one of the state density bonus waivers. five waivers going to six waivers. that is it. the department finds it is on balance consistent with objectives and policies of downtown and general plan. it will provide 392 dwelling

units, 49% are family size two bedrooms or larger helping to alleviate the severe housing crisis. we do remember approval with conditions. that concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is here for you as well. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. thank you for giving us the opportunity. we are here to present a project that you will find everyone is excited about. density bonus, large increase 291 to 33, 55 units throughout the knowledge. i will have som come up with a presentation of the building. >> i am design director. i had some opening remarks but i

think nick and john have covered them. i will go to the presentation. if you focus on the screen there is a building highlighted there in red. the building is located in the transited center district plan on the edge of the central soma plan. we think this is great consistent with the objectives of the city high density transit oriented mixed use development. this is the current building on location. it is pretty much a building that has not been occupied for some time. it has narrow sidewalks. there is much to be also wish for in terms of landscape. it is generally also pretty dark at night. we think our building will have a positive transformative impact

on this immediate context of the city which actually is when you move towards the freeway this is the important experience coming into the city. again, here it is in the plan. this parcel does not have the requirement of power separation. i want to talk during the presentation how we sculpted the building to allow the building to have access to light, ventilation and views. again, if you focus on the screen showing the major fulsome with one way traffic street toward the water. we have a parallel street howard in the opposite direction. hawthorn is a small scale residential type of street with a fine grain component to it which is something we want to add to and also it has quite a

number of mixed uses there on one block. you have a yellow in the residential another residential building on the opposite corner, small buildings and brick which are retail. galleries relocated to this area. you have two office buildings right there also on the same block. the general profile of our project adding to the component of mixed use of this project. so just in summary, you can see we are at 444 approximately feet in terms of height of the total area is 522000 square feet above ground. below grade 80,000 square feet. 392 units. we don't have studios. we are providing 50% of the stud aunts are two and three

bedrooms. 55 are affordable throughout the height of the building and laterally in location. five basements. 107 parking spaces one for four units. 128 bicycle parking inside and 28 outside. if you focus on the stars there, this is an emerging neighborhood. it is a new art district with museums. there have been some significant national galleries relocating to this area. the theme of art how it is integrated and how the building is positioned in the city with this component is important for us and we want to strengthen this as a distinct district --

distinct district. it is landscape coming to extend in this location, and also re-enforcing the active uses including retail on the street. we also have important developments on the south side of fulsome, two smaller buildings are entitle projects. right next to us is not a project that is entitled. we think there might be a future tall building there. the way we thought about the building and it has been shaped anticipates another building there. so if you focus on the rendering on the center, this building is going to be experiencing from the street up fulsome. the idea of the slender profile

re-enforcing the corner is part of the design here. making a very loose reference to the idea of the bay window. we have achieved the slender profile by narrowing the profile of the building and setting back from what is another building at 620 allowing for separation to allow for views and ventilations for not only our building but a future building as well. we have developed the project to address the northern side, open plaza. the building next door is part of john hancock's property. we are invested in improving the open space on that side. if you focus now on the left-hand side of the screen, just re-enforcing this idea of creating a slender profile element at the corner using several strategies which i have already touched upon, at the

base we will talk about the ground floor. if you folks on the right side of the screen. like i mentioned the sidewalks are pretty tight. we have enlarged the sidewalks by setting to the property to make them from in some cases nine to 14 feet. around the corner on fulsome we enlarged them to make that dimension 15 feet. generally along the active uses of the corner we provided for more generous sidewalks. we pushed vehicle entries away from the corner, and we have provided the ad what number of drop offs and curb management strategies on hawthorne to manage the traffic that we will have on the street. in terms of design, the idea is instead of a closed building we

currently have we wanted to open the building to a transparent open lobby on the two sides by opaque panels with concrete to each the mechanical portions of the elementsness air reat will lobby at that -- at the lobby at that corner. at the sixth level if you folk see there is a series of terraces to be activated by users like the gym and yoga space. there is important there will be active uses towards the street but elements of landscape in the design on hawthorne street and full some. we are setting back to power of the building and the two flankses to create a cornice

specifically the red building that is on 620 fulsome. further, we are breaking these things by using the balconies not only as way to bring life back but breaking the base into smaller scaled elements that relate to the smaller scale of hawthorne street and fulsome. if you focus on the left-hand side of is slide we introduced from the base to top a series of elements to create rhythm as it goes up. every four buildings is a band that establishes a rhythm reinforced with balconies. this is incorporates o on the mn

facade balconies that are lined with a material that has warmer materials. as are the undersides of the balconies and areas that define the space of the balconies. the idea is to push the image away from the commercial and introduce warmer materials that have a reference to the residential interiors. this is a typical plan. 12 units per level. as we mentioned, it is family focused. we have two bedrooms and three bedrooms. we have no studios. they are all high-quality. the units are larger. the majority of the buildings currently be being built in the area of town. >> thank you, sir, that is your

time. >> any questions? we will now take public comment on this item. anyone who wants to provide, please come on up. >> good evening, commissioners san francisco housing coalition. we are happy to come here and all conversations led to a positive project supported by folks with density and two and three bedroom units, not a lot of parking. we think it will fit with the neighborhood. we appreciate the project sponsor and everybody going through these conversations. please approve. >> next. >> good evening, commissioners. i am karla. i am here speaking on behalf of

the soma community organizations to move this project forward. the project sponsor agreed to prioritize our community conce concerns esspace leaddressing -- especially the new impact on the gardens. should the agreement be met and formalized we support this project moving forward. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> labor local 261 field rep. , 6,000 members. thank you planning members. it is my pleasure to be here. 95 hawthorne has committed to construct the building with 100% labor. union labor provides benefits to allow members and family to survive in san francisco bay

area. there is a job housing in the south market neighborhood. many of the jobs are high paying positions. the housing crown much is driving out members and residents. this provides effective affordable housing and fees to fund many other unit construction jobs in the transit district. the project replaces a vacant office building. we respectfully request you fellow commissioners approve this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am army morgan with operating engineers. i will keep mine kind of short. we kind of had the same speech.

basically, to provide union paying jobs to our members and provide a lot more housing for san francisco residents, affordable housing, and, you know, good union paying jobs where they can afford to stay here in the city. that is basically all i have got to say. let's keep the progress going, keep people working. it is all good. thank you. please approve this project. >> next speaker, please. >> same thing to say. thank you, planning commissioners. it is a pleasure to represent the members of carpenters local union 22 with greg and bob representing 261. our fellow members were here

earlier today. pretty much what they said to support the project, high paying jobs for laborers and carpenters to keep the families and benefits with the housing they can afford. thank you very much. approve this project and it will be great. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am with the labor local 261. one fact that we have to feel everybody about supporting the project for our members. we are here with the union carpenter operators. we go through this all of the time. some of the benefits we end up getting by supporting this kind

of project is obvious for our members, our communities and our residents. we are talking about housing. the benefits that we all get, you know, just the idea of good jobs, you know, going our way or supporting it. it is a good benefit or all of us. i encourage you to vote yes and support this project. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> i just have to say i notice this building is 42 stories high so i hope all of these workers and construction people and architects take into consideration earthquake

measures. earthquake safety. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: , high density. i really like the building, in a good location. thanks to the developers for making important commitments in writing. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: it is a great project when you have the community get up to support the development. i appreciate the project sponsor doing what they needed to do out there. i absolutely love the project and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner. >> commissioner fung: funk what would it take to make this building cast zero shadows? >> one quick second. >> commissioner fung: on the park and rec part.

>> overhead, please. so a no shadow project would reduce as you can see, it is based on which frontage, almost 200 feet. you would lose a little more than a third of the project. >> commissioner fung: on the park side, not on the gardens. >> on the park? this is the shadow that was performed. >> the gardens is not park and rec. >> i thought that was the one. this will be the one on guy place park. a little sharter. -- shorter. 160 feet along the western

frontage, as short of 58 feet on the northern portion, shorter. >> how many units? >> i think -- you would lose 19 levels which is approximately 228 units you would lose and 32 would be the bmr units. >> okay. thank you. >> just going to say thank you so much for everyone who came out. we have seen this project several times. i am glad that we came to a solution the community could support. thank you to the project sponsor for being willing to engage in that conversation. thank you. >> there is a motion seconded to adopt findings and approve with conditions.

(roll call). >> so moved that passes unanimously 4-0. that places us on 6:00 a.m. and m. >> the shadow motion, too? >> items 16 a&w for 2018-002602 c.u.a. and var. excuse me, folks, if you need to leave the room if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate that. 4118 21st street. please note on august 29, 2019 after hearing and closing public comment you conditioned this matter to september 19th with direction by a vote of 6-0 with

commissioner johnson absent. seeing the second time, do you want to take up the matter of continuance? >> i am sorry. i think we are going to hear it. >> good evening. planning department staff. on august 29th this was continued to legalize demolition and reauthorize the dwelling unit. the sponsor was to provide a breakdown of the square footages for comparison. the sponsor submitted as requested by the commission the plans to show square footages against what is proposed as well as reducing building depth on third floor. since the august 29th hearing they will introduce a second

unit and further address neighbor concerns. the planning department supports that. this concludes my presentation. >> do we have something from the project sponsor? >> there is still opportunity as recently as yesterday we spoke with planning staff to redo you see height. we can speak to the issue nozinan approve this. i am not sure which way you guys want to diet. i can move forward with the presentation quickly for my three minutes if you like. >> the presentation you are going to make is about the new? are you ready? >> we don't have the drawings ready i can speak to that. >> did you want to say something, mr. washington. we can't hear you.

>> i just want to clarify the project sponsor would like to work on the design. it is not a.d.u. this is rh-2 district. it is single family resident. >> so clarify and get the design correct. >> we want to preserve the house in terms of square footage and additional square footage could be another unit. >> this was calendared, you know, we got a lot of communication from folks. i would like to open up for public comment if anybody wants to provide public comment? >> we are ready to speak to it as well. >> we are speaking to the projector matter of continuance? >> matter of continuance. >> let me be chai clear.

we will hear this because we heard this before. the project has been in front of us. the project sponsor is not ready to show what they are now willing to do. the only thing we can do is continue it. if you want to speak to the matter of continuance, go ahead and come up. i have a few speaker cards. jerry stratler, carlos, kay, andrew, cynthia snider, rodriguez and mark antoine ne. >> i am kay crumb. we objectject. wwe object to the continuance. we changed schedules. there is a violation which the

commission should make a ruling on before another presentation is made. any tweaking of the plans will not be affected by that. we would like to go ahead with our presentation about the violations today. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> madam president, may i make a comment on whether to continue or not. might i suggest that we give them direction in terms of the demolition issue and other things and should it be not the position of this commission to grant that, and i think that changes. >> please help me out.

we have to get public comment before we can give direction. >> if you are only accepting testimony on the continuance you are only considering the continuance right now. >> my suggestion is we hear this and provide direction. require them to come back based upon the comments of this commission, then that establishes what they need to do. >> the problem we have nothing to hear. they are not ready to present on the new design. commissioner richards. >> i think we have a volume. there is an envelope they are intending to stay within. >> it is not that simple. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i hope we don't continue this regardless of what you are going to present because we received

communication what was there versus what was represented was there. i think it is very germane to the direction we do give to staff if we give direction to staff on whatever we give. i think we should continue hearing about the continuance. i will not support continuance. >> let's finish hearing about the continuance. i don't think we can hear what the project is because you are not ready. mr. washington just told us that we weren't ready. >> they don't have current plans, the commission could take a motion of intent to approve with specifics and they work with staff. that is an option. >> commissioner richards. >> a demolition of a structure. that is what we are deciding on. we are not deciding on another

project. it is illegal demolition of a structure. >> to clarify, when a project is for demolition you are reviewing the demolition and the proposed replacement structure. both of those are part of the package. you are reviewing both components. they are both under the purview for the ceu. >> i think we should hear folks talk about the continuance. i don't think there ask anything to do other than continue it today, you know. perhaps they are not ready for continuance and want to -- i don't see what else we can do. let's finish. >> i object to a continuance. this was 4:30 p.m. yesterday.

they decided that they weren't ready the commission asked them to present an appraisal to ascertain the square footage on this property. how can you make any rulings or bring in any new projects unless you know the facts, the tenants. i have to tell you about the tenant that was there. i am prepared to give you facts tonight. the rest of the people here are to present facts to illuminate this commission on this project because you were puzzled the last time. please let us be heard. >> 390 diamonds. i want to object to further delays in discussion of this

project. you need to hear about the violations that have occurred, and regardless of what they present going forward. it is not going to change the nature of the violations and it is going to impact the decisions or the guidance you might give the project sponsor regarding further action. >> i am cynthia from 390 diamond. i oppose this continuance for the reasons that were spoken prior to me coming up here. frankly, i think by hearing about the violations and issues that happened on his site as my husband mentioned. they are not going to change between now and next time. it will save people time, money and design if we can address the illegal demolition and other violations.

thank you. >> anyone else about the continuance? >> i am katrina. i live across the street. my wife and i bought a house in 1997. we knew the owners and tenants that came through. we saw this house that these folks lived in perfectly well get torn down in front of our eyes. we have been bogeled by it. we do need to continue. it was illegal demolition. it would be nice to understand more what happened and why. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> my name is jerry with the san francisco land use coalition. this is simple. it is a demolition of 27 square

foot home. i think the facts should be on the table. it is no different than demolition at 655 alvarado. it eliminated two units of affordable rental housing and displacement of 20 year tenant. second unit was illegal unit behind the garage. all of these facts need addressed prior to looking at the design solution. thank you. >> good evening. i live apartment 4105 21st street across the street. i encourage you to not give continuance. we received notice from the sponsors at 4:30 p.m. yesterday when we changed our schedules. it is an illegal demolition.

the impact is something that is worth considering today. we are happy to come later on as well. we are here to give you facts and opinion. i encourage you not to give this continuance. thank you so much. >> i am tony paris across the street from the property. i am in objection to the continuance today. i feel it would be the appropriate time to hear from the neighbors regarding issues that were raised with this illegal demolition that took place. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> there is a little confusion with what is going on with the

continuance. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: there is material evidence that will be introduced by the neighbors which i am sitting up here looking at that is going to change the way we view the surviving project. if we don't hear this, we are going to be sending the project sponsor off to do a project after an illegal demo lyings to create value. this is absurd we would not hear what the additional information is. there were two units there. they misrepresented the facts. let's hear the neighbors, see the evidence, then we can give direction to staff to work with project sponsor on whatever surviving project. >> thank you, commissioner.

i think we can still give direction to staff. i think this commission has been very consistent how we deal with these issues. my problem is there is nothing there to be open pining on. there is no presentation. you don't have plans, you have nothing. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move we put the building back exactly the way the layout was before you demolished it. that is it. >> i am fine with that direction. we can't, you know, they are not putting that forward today as a project. thank you. >> come to the microphone.

>> there is no motion for continuance then? okay. i guess you present whatever you have got. >> good evening, commissioners. at the last hearing this was misunderstood. we appreciate the opportunity to present this more clearly. there is no underlying reason how this occurred. the homeowners and contractor did not realize removal and replacement with no expansion or change of the building envelope would be considered a demolition. it was not demolished overnight. the city signed off on five inspections after most of the demo was concerned. all work before the nov stopped work in january mirrored the

home original contractter. contract or. the desire was to increase the height at the basement. under this permit interior configuration would allow new baths and laundry room in the building. this would have increased the square footage from 3110 existing to 3260. at the last commission we were asked. we have two different appraisers. in 2017 from north point it showed original square footage 2841. from the associates it was 3080 square footage. because this project become ten take meant to demolition due to dry rot and stub standard construction. this has an existing

nonconforming rear extending to the rear yard open space needed constructed to today's standards. as a result the plans before the commission and i will briefly describe the plans. we believe we see can provide a unit within the current envelope we are proposing now. >> on the second level above the basement we are pulling back the rear depth by 12 feet. a benefit to all neighbors. on the first level we are creating 5 by 12 set backs to benerage new open space on both sides. this space the home occupied at the time of purpose. on third level four feet beyond code compliant. how many minutes do i have? >> you had three.

>> the planning department working with them suggested that we need to eliminate the nonconforming rear. as a result because of the flow of the house and this is a multigenerational home with two sets of grandparents with the family we needed the space we lost in the rear on top. it looks like i am out of town. we are proposing to put an additional united on the basement within the current structure we respect proposing. >> now we will take public comment on this proposed project. >> i will remind members of the public this is the second hearing that is why they

received three minutes. you will each receive one minute. >> can we get the overhead projector, please. there was a second unit. number two that multiple permits to remodel were filed instead of following established procedures to demolish. three the structure square footage was misrepresented. first, the contract in septembet buyout process was underway. a series of permit applications was filed. at the time of sale one of the three applications filed only one for interior remodeling and

basement excavation was issued. 11 days after that structure looked like this. third, the records show the square footage was less than what the owners claim. >> your time is up. >> i am owner pat 390. in the city there is a process to follow. what we have here is series of permits to remodel and renovate. first was filed in february 27, 2018. the permit was issued june 28. this was the only permit approved for the project. 17 days after issuance it looked like this. two months later the foundation was gone.

four months later new foundation and rebuildinand recontinues. the second was filed for additional remodeling. planning requested conditional use. owners did not follow-through. on december 26 a third permit submitted violation from d.b.i. for workout of scope. it demonstrates the process was not followed. >> your time is up. commissioners may call you up for additional questions. >> overhead, please.

greetings. a tenant. as they state in a letter regarding 4118 21st street we entered contract in september 2017. at the time a tenant was living there. howard epteen, the landlord was going to issue unlawful detainer. she accepted buyout. tenant relinquished the property possession on october 31st. the hre form documents shows a wood frame building of multi family and the tenant was displaced from her rental unit. it was subsequently demolished. 4118 21st street is one story over two unit building.

>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, here is what we have learned about 4818 21st street. the property had a second rental unit which the owner failed to disclose. overhead. the property had a second rental unit which the owner failed to disclose was rented since 1975 per the report. we have statements from the tenant and previous owners which confirms they were the second rental. it was rented over 20 years by a tent bought out months before she turned 59 and a half. according to the statement it was entered into before they entered into contract to buy the

property in september 2017. the buyout negotiations were taking place. according to the statement, the owners entered into the contract to buy the property in septembet negotiations were taking place. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> the top floor was rented for 10 years which the e-mail from the forger owner confirms. >> it is me again, katrina. i am sharing a letter from the woman who lived in the lower unit. i was friends with her. she was bought out. these are her words about her livings situation. i lived at 1418 and a mavuntil the building was sold in 2017. i did not have any access to the apartment upstairs. their door was at the front and

my apartment was at the garage. i had separate entrance from the outside. there was a door in if garage leading to the apartment upstairs. i did not have a key. i paid $600 a month rent when i moved in and $1,000 when i moved out. that was an affordable piece of housing rent for her. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. at the last -- could we have the overhead, please. at the last hearing commissioner richards asked for an appraisal report on the demolished house. we obtained the official appraisal for the former owners for the 2002 refinance the total square footage 2613 square feet which excludeses the basement storage room below the garage

level no more than 182 square feet. we located two city documents which give the demolished building area. 1955 permit certification from the hre shows ground lure at 1250 square feet and san francisco plannings own land use information says it is 2671 square feet below legal height. no official documents show a building larger than 2671 square feet. >> thank you, ma'am. >> i am rodriguez at 4105 21st street. we urge you to mandate consistent enforcement of illegal merger of the two units.

this was an interior remodel of 2671 square feet. today the project is substantial increase. it is a very large increase from what was there originally. they said that the current proposal does additional square footage to the ver very cal addition. i brief believe it is over what it was. they should not be rewarded with substantial increase in the square footage building. that reward should not be done. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> overhead please. i am tony paris